We have laws here against knife size as well but it varies from state-to-state. A knife that’s illegal to carry in California would be perfectly legal here in Arkansas. But that’s because the only restriction we have here in Arkansas is that you can’t carry a knife with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person. And even then, statute 5-73-120 defines a knife as "any bladed hand instrument three inches (3″) or longer that is capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death by cutting or stabbing, including a dirk, a sword or spear in a cane, a razor, an ice pick, a throwing star, a switchblade, and a butterfly knife.
Anyway, the reason I thought British folks were a bit paranoid about knives is becaue in the other thread several of them seemed to be really concerned about anyone carrying any knife of any size. I asked about a knife I commonly carried with a blade under 3" and even that was deemed unnecessary and therefore dangerous.
As mentioned earlier, in the USA the “knife bans” that tended to focus on switchblades and the like were very much understood to be about a fear of street toughs and juvenile delinquents, and let’s face it, specifically of ethnic street toughs and juvenile delinquents.
Because, what, serious law abiding citizens just use their waking canes? Or withering words?
But that then sounds like a peculiar point of view, that the mere fact of availing yourself of anything that could be used as a weapon, even with an obvious defensive purpose from context, makes you worth “treating as a [potential] criminal” (I wonder how that applies to carrying a baseball/cricket bat behind your driving seat…)
There is also how any of the urban centers that ban certain types (or all types) of knives will also restrict citizen ownership and use of anything deviced to incapacitate or cause pain to someone else – so no dice on the bear spray either, and in some towns not even plain pepper spray.
You don’t think that when most people hear the word “children” they don’t usually presume preteens? That “guns are the number one cause of death for children” isn’t meant to give the false impression that little gradeschoolers are being massacred wholesale? It IS disingenuous!
I gather that, according to the current U.S. Supreme Court, you are supposed to look at old history to determine if outlawing is OK, with the idea presumably being that back then they understood the second amendment better than now.
The 19th century equivalent of an assault weapon ban was the outlawing of the Bowie knife. It was hard to define what one was, but it seemed to mostly be a very scary knife due to it being used for killing people. Sometimes they were outlawed, sometimes taxed so high that hardly anyone could buy one, and sometimes you could own one but couldn’t carry it, or use it against a person.
I got this from a pro-gun legal article that tries to give a different spin on it all but still acknowledges what I said here:
As to whether there really are knives that are more designed for killing people than other purposes, I’m not sure, but, if there are, the old laws made sense.
I watched one of the many cop shows we have here, where a camera goes out with a squad car.
A car came up on their ANPR system as one “involved in drugs”. They stopped it without any drama and one of them went to talk to the two guys inside. He leaned in the passenger window and said there was a strong smell of cannabis which, apparently, was enough reason to search the car. He found a metal baseball bat in the boot (trunk) but no other evidence of any interest in the sport. They also found a fairly large wad of money.
In spite of there being no drugs found, they were taken to the police station for a “proper” search with a dog. Nothing was found so they were released without charge, but the baseball bat was confiscated.
I find myself in two minds about this. On the one hand, there was probably a good reason to assume that these guys were up to no good. On the other, they offered no resistance (of course they knew they were clean) and there might have been a good explanation for the bat other than its likely use as a weapon.
It’s a ban on carrying a large knife in public, not on selling or possessing large knives. A big-ass chef’s knife is still legal to own and use, you just can’t walk around downtown with it stuck in your belt.
I am a professional cook and I am constantly using knives of all sorts, but mainly a chef knife. I carry a small pocket knife of about 3 inches in my pocket because it is annoying to go and get an 8 inch knife to open a box, or a bucket, or whatever. I know some people who like to carry a larger switchblade for that purpose but it seems like overkill to me.
Agreed. Perhaps I am just lucky (I think I am just normal actually), but I never feel a need to think “What if I need to defend myself with lethal force today?” I am at risk from careless operators of motor vehicles, and poorly maintained architecture, falling rocks, twisting my ankle in a rabbit hole and probably a whole load of other things, but attack by humans (such that carrying a weapon would help) is just so far down the list, it never comes up. It’s not zero and could still happen of course, but so could being struck by lightning or whatnot.
I think it’s fair to say most people do draw a line somewhere beneath which there are things they never feel a need to worry about and for a lot of people - the majority of the UK population, I believe, ‘needing a gun or a stabby knife’ is well below the line.
“The panel held that possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” according to the opinion. “Bladed weapons facially constitute ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
I’m not in Hawaii or even the USA but I went onto Amazon.co.uk to see if I can buy a butterfly knife. And I can! Ostensibly they’re for martial arts practice and are dull. Yet right in the center of the page is a promoted ad for a powered knife sharpener!
Amazon.co.uk also sells foam padded nunchucks. They are not made by Nerf™ yet I’m certain if you were banged upside the head by one you’d merely say, “Ow. Quit it”
Those terrorists who drove a van over London Bridge in the 2017 attack (not to be confused with the 2019 attack which was near but not on the bridge) hitting people before finally crashing jumped out with ceramic knives. Not sure why ceramic - maybe the multiple colours you can buy them in makes them attractive or since they kinda suck compared to steel knives they’re cheaper.
Not British but in the UK. There does seem to be a spate of knife attacks lately (or yeah perhaps more reporting). Yet in June in my neighbourhood in Bath a 16 year old was stabbed and killed at a party and two boys 15 and 16 who cannot legally be named went to court yesterday. Dunno if it’s of the “machine-gun -v- AR15” kind of reporting, but it was in the news that they (not sure how two kids can have one knife) had a “Rambo-style knife”. If that’s true, to quote the renowned poacher/bushman Mick Dundee, “That’s a knife.”
My Leatherman Sidekick™ is kinda-sorta illegal in the UK as two of it’s blades (the knifey-bladey kind and the saw-blade) are “lock knives” as you need to press a button to release them.
Back in her sous-chef days, my wife used to carry her knives to and from work in her purse. She said they made her feel marginally safer taking the NY subway home after an evening shift.
I can accept, just, the psychology, but in real terms, those knives were no help and may well have encouraged an attack. I am assuming that your wife is not trained or even practised at knife fighting.
I usually carry a knife. I use it to cut fruit, to open parcels, even to trim my nails. I keep it very sharp.
There’s no way on God’s green earth i would take it out of my pocket or display it if i were attacked. That would just escalate a situation where i would still have the disadvantage.
If i weren’t overwhelmed with fear, i would scream. In practice, I’d probably be frozen with fear. But like @Mangetout , i rarely think about being physically attacked, and my chief defense when i walk in risky places is to look alert and be aware of where other people are.
The point is (no pun intended) that the knives in her purse would make no difference if she left them there, but if she, as an inexpert knife fighter, took one out, any potential aggressor would see it as a challenge and a threat.
Like guns, knives (as weapons) are not for intimidation. You only pull out a knife if you are going to use it, and the only use for it is to kill your opponent, not to start some Hollywood-style knife “fight”. If all that seems reasonably likely to happen on one’s daily commute then there is a big problem.
Knife fighting? No, none of her training involved melee weapons, and she knew as well as you do not to get involved in a fight, and to run away if she could. But if someone was actively trying to kill her, and there was no way for her to get away, then a knife would still be better than no weapon at all.